For starters most Malaysian lawyers are not competent or experienced in the area of public international law, let alone their own constitution. There can be no recriminations over the outcome of the Batu Putih litigation.
Batu Putih was decided on the facts and submission submitted by both sides with the views and opinions of experts and historians to support. Singapore won the day. Dr. Mahathir's decision in the circumstances was within the ambit of his powers and within the scope of the constitution. You don't win every contest. And whether you do or don't there are reasons often that go with the decision not to file an appeal against the decision unless of course new facts no available at the time of the hearings had subsequently become available and become admissable under the rules of the ICJ.
What Anwar seeks to do perhaps if indeed he is being vindictive is to expose the quality of the legal team who represented Malaysia. The Malaysian legal team was by any standards, out of its depth intellectually in terms of experience and academically from a wasteland of the law.
There was considerable expenditure wasted on what was an over charging by Malaysia's legal team of the government. Apart from incompetence there was also the issue of evidence being such a low quality that it embarassed the Queens Counsel they briefed in the matter.
Malaysia's constitution was drafted in a hurry by an inexperienced team of legal draftsmen a matter which has been commented on dversely and criticised by a number of legal experts and commentators in the constitution.
Professor Harding (formerly of Singapore University School of law) identified the source of confusion with Malaysian lawyers and judges when interpreting the constitution of Malaysia. It lies in the drafting of Malaysia's constitution. Yet not a single 'authority' on Malaysia's constitution has been able to deal with that issue to this day.
It is one of several worth reading before commenting on legal views especially constitutional matters espoused by Malaysian lawyers.
Based on what I have read, the cabinet was told of the decision to withdraw the appeal with regards to Batu Puteh AFTER Malaysia had informed Singapore.
In true Mahathir fashion, he passed on the decision to the cabinet.
If that was the timeline, how could there be any discussion or debate in the cabinet?
The decision was a fait accompli.
Therefore, Mahathir is the one who bears sole responsibility.
For starters most Malaysian lawyers are not competent or experienced in the area of public international law, let alone their own constitution. There can be no recriminations over the outcome of the Batu Putih litigation.
Batu Putih was decided on the facts and submission submitted by both sides with the views and opinions of experts and historians to support. Singapore won the day. Dr. Mahathir's decision in the circumstances was within the ambit of his powers and within the scope of the constitution. You don't win every contest. And whether you do or don't there are reasons often that go with the decision not to file an appeal against the decision unless of course new facts no available at the time of the hearings had subsequently become available and become admissable under the rules of the ICJ.
What Anwar seeks to do perhaps if indeed he is being vindictive is to expose the quality of the legal team who represented Malaysia. The Malaysian legal team was by any standards, out of its depth intellectually in terms of experience and academically from a wasteland of the law.
There was considerable expenditure wasted on what was an over charging by Malaysia's legal team of the government. Apart from incompetence there was also the issue of evidence being such a low quality that it embarassed the Queens Counsel they briefed in the matter.
Malaysia's constitution was drafted in a hurry by an inexperienced team of legal draftsmen a matter which has been commented on dversely and criticised by a number of legal experts and commentators in the constitution.
Professor Harding (formerly of Singapore University School of law) identified the source of confusion with Malaysian lawyers and judges when interpreting the constitution of Malaysia. It lies in the drafting of Malaysia's constitution. Yet not a single 'authority' on Malaysia's constitution has been able to deal with that issue to this day.
It is one of several worth reading before commenting on legal views especially constitutional matters espoused by Malaysian lawyers.
Based on what I have read, the cabinet was told of the decision to withdraw the appeal with regards to Batu Puteh AFTER Malaysia had informed Singapore.
In true Mahathir fashion, he passed on the decision to the cabinet.
If that was the timeline, how could there be any discussion or debate in the cabinet?
The decision was a fait accompli.
Therefore, Mahathir is the one who bears sole responsibility.